Participationand the role of lawafter lisbon: A legal view onarticle 11 TEU

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1849-1879

  Mendes, Joana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859094026     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Case T-521/93, Atlanta AG and others v. Council and Commission, [1996] ECR II-1707, paras. 70-74; Case C-104/97 P, AtlantaAG and others v. Commission and Council, [1999] ECR I-6983, paras. 35-38.
2. Craig, The Lisbon Treaty. Law, Politics, and Treaty Reform, (OUP, 2010), p. 77.
3. Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of 16 Feb. 2011 on the citizens' initiative, O.J. 2011, L 65/1.
4. See in this Review, Dougan, "What are we to make of the citizens' initiative?", 1807-1848
5. Hüller, "Playground or Democratization? New Participatory Procedures at the European Commission", (2010) Swiss Political Science Review, 77-107, at 82
6. Fischer-Hotzel, "Democratic Participation? The involvement of citizens in policy-making at the European Commission", (2010) Journal of Contemporary European Research, 335-52, at 341, 343
7. On the possible legal consequences, see infra section 3.2. On the implications of Art. 11 TEU for the Commission, see infra section 4.
8. This requires interpreting narrowly the term "legal act" ("acte juridique") used in Art. 11(4) TEU.
9. Emphasis added
10. Also in a preliminary draft of the ConstitutionalTreaty, openness appeared as a condition of the principle of participatory democracy: "The Institutions are to ensure a high level of openness, permitting citizens' organizations of all kinds to play a full part in the Union's affairs" (Secretariat of the Convention, "Cover Note from Praesidium to the Convention", Conv 369/02, Brussels, 28 Oct. 2002, p. 15, available at).
11. E.g. the European Aviation and Safety Agency ( and ).
12. E.g. Art. 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of 28 Jan. 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedural in matters of food safety, O.J. 2002, L 31/1; Art. 52(1)(c) of Regulation No. 216/2008 of 20 Feb. 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No. 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC, O.J. 2008, L 79/1.
13. On the possible legal consequences of Art. 11, see section 4 infra.
14. See section 3.1 infra.
15. Presidency Conclusions of the Laeken European Council (14 and 15 Dec. 2001): Annex I: Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union (Bull. EC 12-2001, pp. 19-23).
16. On the drafting of the ConstitutionalTreaty's title on "the democratic life of the Union", see Closa, "Constitutional prospects of European citizenship and new forms of democracy", in Amato, Bribosia and De Witte (Eds), Genèse et destinée de la Constitution Europeéenne: commentaire du Traité éstablissant une Constituion pour l'Europe à la lumière des travaux préparatoires et perspectives d'avenir (Bruylant, 2007), pp. 1037-63, at p. 1049.
17. "European Governance. A White Paper", COM(2001)428 final, Brussels, 25.7.2001.
18. Specifically on why and how an article on participatory democracy made its way to the Constitutional Treaty, see Bouza García, "Civil society expectations on Article 11 TEU: more democracy or better access?", paper presented at the 40th UACES annual conference (Bruges, Belgium: 6-8 Sept. 2010), on file with the author.
19. See, further, Mendes, Participation in EU rule-making.A rights-based approach, (OUP, 2011), Chapt. 3, sections 3.1 and 3.2.
20. Greven, "Some Considerations on Participation in Participatory Governance", in Kohler-Koch and Rittberger (Eds.), Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union (Rowan & Littlefield, 2007), pp. 231-48, at pp. 236-37, 240.
21. Commission Communication 'An open and structured dialogue between the Commission and special interest groups' (Communication 93/C63/02, of 12 of Dec. 1992, SEC/92/2272 final) available at ).
22. Magnette, "European governance and civic participation: beyond elitist citizenship?", (2003) Political Studies, 144-160
23. Armstrong, "Rediscovering civil society: the European Union and the White Paper on Governance", (2002) European Law Journal, 102-132
24. o 6/01.
25. On social legitimacy, see Weiler, "Problems of legitimacy in post 1992 Europe", 46 Aussenwirtschaft (1991), 411-37, at 416
26. Communication, "Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission", COM(2002)704 final, Brussels, 11.12.2002.
27. Underlying this observation is the assumption that the enhancing trust function of participation is still, in the Commission's view and practices after 2000, a policy-oriented use of participation, not a value-based one. Depending on sector specificities, there may be important nuances to the continuity of meaning between previous and new forms of fostering participation.
28. On founding principles, see Von Bogdandy, "Founding Principles", in Von Bogdandy and Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Hart publishing, 2010), pp. 11-54, in particular pp. 21-23.
29. Mény, "De la Démocratie en Europe: Old Concepts and New Challenges", 41 JCMS (2003), 1-13, at 4
30. Follesdal and Hix, "Why is there a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik", 44 JCMS (2006), 533-62, at 534-36, among many others
31. "Birmingham Declaration - A Community close to its citizens", Annex I to the Conclusions of the Presidency of the Birmingham European Council (Bull. EC 10-1992, p. 9); "Transparency - Implementation of the Birmingham Declaration", Annex 3 to Part 1 of the Conclusions of the Presidency of the Edinburgh European Council (Bull. EC 12-1992). Presidency Conclusions of the Laeken European Council (14 and 15 Dec. 2001): Annex I: Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union (Bull. EC 12-2001, pp. 19-23).
32. BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 of 30.6.2009, para 272, available at .
33. Fazi and Smith, "Civil dialogue: making itwork better", (2006) Study commissioned by the Civil Society Contact Group, pp. 45 and 48.
34. Quittkat and Finke, "The EU Commission Consultation Regime", in Kohler-Koch, De Bièvre and Moloney, Opening EU-Governance to Civil Society - Gains and Challenges, CONNEX Report Series No. 5, pp. 200, 218.
35. Ferretti, "Participatory strategies in the regulation ofGMOproducts in the EU", in Steffek, Kissling and Nanz (Eds.), Civil society participation in European and global governance. A cure for the democratic deficit? (Macmillan, 2008), pp. 166-84.
36. Quittkat, "The European Commission's Online Consultations: A Success Story?", 49 JCMS (2011), 653-74
37. Kohler-Koch, "Does participatory governance hold its promises?", in Kohler-Koch and Larat (Eds), Efficient and democratic governance, Connex Report Series n. 9, (2008), pp. 265-295, at, p. 282.
38. E.g. Commission Staff Working Document, "Impact Assessment Board Report for 2010?, SEC(2011)126 final, Brussels, 24.1.2011, p. 14.
39. Commission Communication, "Smart Regulation in the European Union", COM(2010)543 final, Brussels, 8.10.2010, pp. 10-11; Commission Staff Working Document, "Impact Assessment Board Report for 2009?, SEC(2009)1728 final, Brussels, 29.1.2010, p. 9; Communication from the Commission "Follow-up to the Green Paper 'European Transparency Initiative'", COM(2007)127 final, Brussels, 21.3.2007, p. 6.
40. Inter-institutional Monitoring Group, "First Interim Report Monitoring on the functioning the Lamfalussy process", Brussels, 22 March 2006, pp. 12-13 (available at ).
41. On the need to situate this view of equality within a theory of political equality, in particular when considering equal treatment as a rule that yields institutional requirements, see Beitz, Political Equality. An Essay in Democratic Theory (Princeton, 1989), pp. 4-19.
42. "Democracy is a concept that virtually defies definition" (Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies. A comparative Exploration (Yale Univ. Press, 1997), p. 4) and that can be discussed from different conceptual perspectives. Nevertheless, one may argue that a claim of equality is common to different theories of democracy, even if present in different degrees and shapes, depending on each conceptualization. At an abstract level, one can surmise "democracy is essentially a matter of the equal distribution of power over political decisions", taking equal power to mean equal influence as an ideal that cannot be detached from an adequate conception of democracy.
43. (Dworkin, "What is Equality? Part 4: Political Equality", (1987) University of San Francisco Law Review, 1-30, at 4, 12-18)
44. According to Schmidt-Assmann, this is one of the functions of administrative law in contemporary society (Schmidt-Assmann, La teoría general del derecho amministrativo como sistema (Madrid: 2003), pp. 23-25 and pp. 36-40).
45. For an assessment, see Craig, EU Administrative Law, (OUP, 2006), pp. 328-30.
46. See supra text of note 55. Indeed, the decision-maker can easily justify policy choices after consultation procedures by stating that the objections have been duly taken into account (Ferretti, "Participation, Democratic Deficit and Good Regulation: A Case Study of Participatory Strategies in the European Regulation of GMO Products", ZERP-Diskussionspapier 6/200, in particular, pp. 16-17). This is all the more true if the giving of reasons is not subject to further judicial or administrative controls.
47. See supra section 3 on the background of Art. 11 TEU.
48. See further Pennock, Democratic Political Theory (Princeton Univ. Press, 1979), pp. 441-49.
49. On the legal consequences that may stem from Art. 11(3) TEU, see infra section 4.
50. See infra notes 81 and 82, as well as respective text. See, however, in the field of State aid, Case C-198/91, William Cook plc v. Commission, [1993] ECR I-2487, paras. 22-26; Case C-225/91, Matra v. Commission, [1993] ECR I-3203, paras. 17-20.
51. On the scope of the obligations that may stem from Art. 11 TEU in the normative reading proposed in this Article, see supra section 3.2.
52. On the shortcomings of current practices, see supra section 3.1.
53. See also supra section 3.1.
54. See, however, Commission, 'Impact Assessment Guidelines', 15 Jan. 2009, SEC(2009) 92, p. 6 (available at ), which still excludes the application of consultation standards from a large share of delegated and implementing acts adopted outside legislative procedures.
55. This draws on previous case lawthat, in order to ensure effective judicial protection, had admitted annulment actions against acts of EU agencies with external legal effects. E.g. Case T-411/06, Sogelma v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), [2008] ECR II-2771, paras. 36, 37 and 49-53.
56. Koch, "Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals' right to an effective remedy", 30 EL Rev. (2005), 511-27, at 519-27.
57. Dougan, "The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning minds, not hearts", 45 CML Rev. (2008), 617-703, at 676-79
58. Order of 6 Sept. 2011 in Case T-18/10, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v. Parliament and Council, nyr.
59. "The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy" (emphasis added). No parallel statement is made with regard to participatory democracy. In addition, while the refractions of representative democracy are clear in other Treaty modifications (e.g. the role of national parliaments, the strengthened role of the European Parliament in the legislative procedures), this is not the case with regard to participatory democracy.